Q&A

Suppose a Blue Robot is legally driving near the opposing Red Stake. A Red Robot intentionally or strategically pushes the Blue Robot into the Red Stake, causing the Stake to collapse. In this situation, the Blue Robot did not intentionally contact the Stake. The Blue Robot was attempting to escape, but contact occurred because the Red Robot continuously pushed and forced blue bots into the Stake.

How should this interaction be ruled?

More specifically:

1. Does it matter whether the Red Robot intentionally pushed the Blue Robot into the Red Stake, or is the final result—the Red Stake collapsing—alone sufficient to determine the ruling?
2. If the Blue Robot had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the contact because the Red Robot continuously and intentionally pushed it as part of a strategic action, should this be considered a forced interaction rather than a violation by the Blue Robot? Major Violation or DQ?
3. Should this situation be evaluated under the Game Manual principle that a Team may not force an opponent into a violation?

The concern is that if the ruling is based only on which Robot ultimately contacts or causes the opposing Stake to collapse, Teams may intentionally develop strategies that involve pushing an opposing Robot into their own Stake to force a penalty or Disqualification.

Clarification from the GDC would help Teams understand whether this type of strategy is legal and how Head Referees should consistently evaluate these interactions.<GG16>

We are seeking clarification regarding <GG4> and <SG11> when using the Match Loader. <GG4> <SG11>

Consider the following scenario:

The Match Loader is in its fully lowered position. A Drive Team Member places a single Pin into the Match Loader and briefly puts their hand inside the Loader in order to properly position the Pin.

The sequence is:

The Match Loader is fully lowered. The Drive Team Member places a single Pin into the Loader and briefly reaches their hand inside the Loader to position the Pin properly. The Drive Team Member completely removes their hand from the Loader. After the hand has been fully removed is the Match Loader raised.

At no point is the Match Loader raised while the Drive Team Member's hand is inside it.

Would briefly placing a hand inside the fully lowered Match Loader for the purpose of properly positioning a Pin be considered a violation of <GG4> or <SG11>?

More specifically, does the hand entering the Loader in this manner count as entering the 3-dimensional volume of the Field under <GG4>, or is this action permitted as part of Match Loading under <SG11>?

Thank you for your clarification.

Point a-v of <GG5> states that a valid reason a match replay is (emphasis mine):

Field control disconnecting or Disabling multiple Robots. Note, this is sometimes confused with a Robot whose motors have overheated, or bent pins on a controller’s competition port causing intermittent drop-outs. In general, any true Field fault will impact both Alliances simultaneously, not one Robot at a time.

The red box below the rule states:

Note: Communication or control issues affecting a single Robot are not considered eligible grounds for a replay.

Suppose that a single Robot experiences a field disconnect during a Match. That Robot is the only Robot affected by a disconnect during the Match. After the Match, the Head Referee examines the Smart Field Controller and determines that the disconnect was caused by bent pins in the port of the Smart Field Controller (in other words, the disconnect was caused by an issue beyond the control of the Team). The Head Referee is sure that no other issues with the smart cable, Controller of the affected Team, or their Robot, could have caused the disconnect. Is rule GG5 stating that the Match should NOT be replayed?

Rule Quote: <GG9>

Robots may not intentionally grasp, grapple, hook, attach to or otherwise Entangled with any Field Elements. Strategies with mechanisms that react against multiple sides of a Field Element in an effort to latch or hook onto said Field Element are prohibited. The intent of this rule is to prevent Teams from unintentionally damaging the Field and/or from anchoring to or otherwise Entangling themselves with the Field. Whenever possible, Head Referees should alert Teams to potential Violations before they happen to prevent actual Violations. If a Robot takes immediate action to avoid or resolve the issue, and if the Head Referee determines that the issue had no effect on the Match, no Violation should be recorded.

<SC4>

SC4> A Toggle is considered set to a color when it meets all of the following criteria at the end of the Match: a. The Toggle must be fully seated, such that there is a face of the Toggle in contact and parallel with its mounts on the Field Perimeter at rest. (see Figure SC5-1) b. The Toggle is not in contact with a Robot from either Alliance.

Question: In the context of the current game, is it legal for a robot to position a piece of C-channel underneath the Toggle mechanism to prevent it from rotating?

The mechanism is not "clamped" or "grasped" in a way that prevents the robot from driving away (no permanent attachment), but the geometry of the C-channel effectively wedges the Toggle so it cannot be turned by an opponent. Does this "jamming" action constitute "attaching to a field element", or is it considered a legal defensive strategy provided the robot can move away freely?

Video I saw on youtube of this idea: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Kyow3GVag-0

A.Is it legal to use active cooling devices for motor during the match? B.Is it legal to use active cooling devices for motor outside of the match? C.Is it legal to use passive cooling devices for motor? D.Is it legal to use thermal paste serves as an aid to heat dissipation for motor?

R16 states:

Any questions or concerns about legal parts should be directed to the official Q&A System on events.vex.com.

This is both a question and a concern. The VEX V5 vision sensor 276-4850 (sold by vex and used by teams for many years) is no longer listed in the competition legal parts list.

I have several questions/concerns:

• Does this mean that the V5 vision sensor is no longer legal for use in V5RC? If so, why was this change made?
• What other previously legal parts have been removed from the list since last season? It's hard to find previous versions of the list because its updated on a continual basis, and there are zero changelogs whatsoever. So, in order to determine what changed teams somehow must memorize the entire list and compare their memory to what is currently in the list.
• Why are changes to the list not at least announced so that teams can review their parts in use? As it stands, many teams are likely to find out for the first time at a tournament inspection that their parts are no longer legal, because a silent edit to a google doc was made without their knowledge.

<R19> Rule R 19 lists several Non-VEX components that are allowed. In previous years, both the manual and the knowledgebase listed the specific SMC legacy pneumatics components that were legal for competition use. This year there is no mention of the legacy pneumatics in the manual at all. They are not listed as allowed parts in R 19, but there is also no mention of them not being allowed in R 18, so there is a bit of confusion. Several other rules in the manual (GG3, R25, R26, etc) specifically mention VEX pneumatics parts. Am I correct to assume that this means that the legacy SMC pneumatics components are not legal to use this year and the only legal pneumatic components are the VEX branded ones?

<R23> reads:

Anodizing, painting, dyeing or changing the color of any legal VEX part is prohibited.

Our team has many RoboSource "Color Coded Star Drive Screws" where the screw heads have been painted by the vendor.

Related to this, we also have many RoboSource "Color-Coded Standoffs" which are anodized aluminum.

Technically, none of us painted or anodized the part ourselves - it came brand new painted and/or anodized from a well-known reputable vendor.

Are either or both of these two types of products legal?

Thank you!

<R23>

Decorations that cover or obscure identifying features of electronics and/or pneumatics parts are not legal. i. Teams will be asked to either replace the electronics and/or pneumatics part entirely, or remove the decoration if possible. ii. Identifying features include, but are not limited to, VEX logos, part numbers, and other distinctive colors or features of the part that allow an inspector to easily confirm it is a legal part.

Question: Over the course of normal use, the plastic protective wrapping/labeling on V5RC pneumatic reservoirs and cylinders can become frayed, damaged, or fall off entirely, removing the VEX logo and part number. If a pneumatic part is otherwise identical in form and function to an official VEX part but is missing its factory label/logo due to wear and tear, is it still considered legal for competition use and furthermore, what secondary identifying features should a team point to during inspection to "easily confirm" the part is legal if the primary logo is missing?

Our team's questions are as follows, with two specific examples which we would like clarified.

(a) Rule <R23> states that “Decorations that cover or obscure identifying features of electronics and/or pneumatics parts are not legal.” Identifying features are defined following this, with "Identifying features include, but are not limited to, VEX logos, part numbers, and other distinctive colors or features of the part that allow an inspector to easily confirm it is a legal part." In some cases, modifications to VEX parts which remove material may remove the presence of VEX logos, listed as an identifying part. These modifications are not necessarily due to decorations, but they do remove the VEX logo, and may be for either functional or aesthetic reasons otherwise legal. Will such modifications be legal in general in the future?

Now, we would like to ask about specific applications of this rule.

(b) Teams have cut VEX gears for many seasons now in order to reduce drivetrain space and weight. Cutting or modifying these gears as has been standard for past seasons would potentially remove VEX logos, an identifying part. Will cutting of gears in ways that may remove the VEX logo be legal this season and in following seasons?

(c) Many teams have removed the vinyl wrapping on their air tanks and air cylinders. This does not affect the functionality of the air cylinder or air tank, and is usually made for aesthetic reasons or after damage to the vinyl wrapping. Removing the vinyl wrapping will remove VEX logos. Will air cylinders and air tanks with the vinyl wrapping removed be legal this season and in upcoming seasons? If not, how does VEX robotics plan to allow old pneumatics sets with these vinyl wrappings removed to be legal, if at all?

(d) Hypothetically, if a team was to remove the VEX logo from parts for little to no gain, like shaving off the VEX logo off new aluminum C-channels or sandblasting the surface of a VEX gear or sprocket, how would this be ruled?

(e) In the past, teams have been known to use rubber bands or zipties to connect the VEX V5 Smart Motor cap and body, in order to improve maintainability and serviceability in the middle of a competition. This is commonly referred to as allowing a motor to be "hotswapped". However, in some cases, these zipties or rubber bands can cover the VEX logo on these motors, which are electronic parts. Will such hotswapping setups be allowed in this season and onwards? If not, <R23> also states that the appropriate way to address this is to "remove the decoration if possible". Would this removal be only for inspection, or would it be for the duration of the competition? Broadly applied, since the intent of this rule is to aid in inspection, do restrictions on decorations potentially obscuring VEX identifying features apply only during inspection, or through the full duration of the competition?

(f) Finally, what are some general guidelines our team can apply to decide the legality of modifications which remove identifying features in the future? We ask this on an understanding that not every edge case can be covered here, but the manual is vague on these guidelines as well.

Our question relates to the application of <R23>; specifically, <R23> part (a), stating that "Anodizing, painting, dyeing or changing the color of any legal VEX part is prohibited."

(a) The VEX manual clearly states that some commercial off-the-shelf parts are legal, as has been standard for past seasons. Some of these parts come in color; for example, some companies sell nuts which come in color, and many teams choose to use screws with colored heads to aid in identification of screw lengths. These COTS colored parts can be considered to be outside the category of "legal VEX part", as they are not manufactured by VEX. Will these parts be legal? Broadly applied, does legal VEX part apply only to parts sold and distributed by VEX Robotics, Inc.?

(b) i. Many teams in the past have used anodized metal parts like C-channels or dyed parts like gears. Before the 2026-27 season, these parts were already dyed or anodized. The language of <R23> states that the action of anodization/painting/dyeing/coloring is not legal, but it does not state that the use of previously anodized/painted/dyed/colored parts is illegal. This part of the rule was not present before the 2026-27 season. Does <R23> forbid the action of anodizing, painting, dyeing, or changing the color of any legal VEX part from the 2026-27 season onwards, or is it meant to be applied in retrospect, overriding previous game manuals, thereby banning all parts that have been anodized, painted, dyed, or color-changed, including ones teams already owned, and that were previously legal?

(b) ii. This is a follow-up to (b) i. IF all anodized/dyed/painted/colored parts are banned. Does VEX have a plan to compensate or alleviate the financial burden on organizations which have a large amount of these parts? <R23> (a) was added to the rulebook without warning, and many teams operated under the expectation that these previously unambiguously legal parts would be continually reusable for future seasons, as is the intent with purchasing these parts; they are an investment towards students' education for the season the parts are bought in and many seasons following. How does VEX intend these teams to deal with the sudden financial burden of needing new parts?

<R28> <R23>

We are seeking clarification on whether our specific LED implementation is legal under the current Override game manual.

Our Setup:

A custom-made, non-VEX-branded 3-conductor wire with the appropriate 3-wire port connector on one end, plugged directly into a 3-wire port on the V5 Brain. The other end connects to an LED via a solderless crimp - no soldering, welding, gluing, or brazing is involved at any point. The LED has no independent power source and no independent microcontroller. It is powered and controlled entirely by the V5 Brain. The intended use is as a non-functional visual decoration to provide robot state feedback to our drive team. Question 1 - Does <R28> Apply to Our Custom Wire?

<R28> restricts modifications to electronic or pneumatic components of the VEX platform, specifically including "cables" and "any other electrical component of the VEX platform." Our 3-conductor wire is not a VEX component, it was fabricated from scratch and is not a modified or repaired VEX cable. We believe <R28> therefore does not govern this wire at all, as it only addresses modifications to existing VEX-platform components.

Is this interpretation correct, that <R28> does not apply to a custom-built wire that was never a VEX component to begin with?

Question 2 - Is There Any Rule Restricting What May Be Plugged Into a 3-Wire Port?

We are not aware of any rule in the current game manual that requires the wire or device plugged into a V5 Brain 3-wire port to be a VEX-branded component. <R20> governs custom V5 Smart Cables and restricts smart port usage to legal electronic devices, but we cannot identify equivalent language restricting 3-wire port connections to VEX-branded components only. The 3-wire port is a standard physical interface that VEX designed for external connections.

Is there any rule that prohibits plugging a custom (non-VEX) wire into a V5 Brain 3-wire port?

Question 3 - Legality as a Non-Functional Decoration Under <R23>

Assuming Questions 1 and 2 are resolved in our favor, we believe our LED qualifies as a legal non-functional decoration under <R23>. Specifically:

It does not affect robot performance or the outcome of a match. It serves no structural function. It does not mimic field elements or interfere with opponent sensors. It is powered solely by the V5 Brain battery, no additional power source. It is controlled by the V5 Brain, no additional microcontroller. In previous years, decorative LEDs controlled by the V5 Brain and used to provide visual feedback to drive team members have been permitted to an extent. The current <R23> continues to allow non-functional decorations, and we believe this use case falls within that permission.

Is a Brain-controlled LED, connected via a custom non-VEX wire plugged into a 3-wire port, legal as a non-functional decoration under <R23>, including for the purpose of providing visual robot-state feedback to drive team members?

In what tense, cooling devices count as decoration?

Rule <R24> governing custom plastics states: Legal plastic types are polycarbonate (Lexan), acetal monopolymer (Delrin), acetal copolymer (Acetron GP), POM (acetal), ABS, PEEK, PET, HDPE, LDPE, nylon (all grades), polypropylene, PTFE, and FEP.

Certain manufacturing styles, such as SRPP (Self-Reinforced Polypropylene) or SR-PET, use a woven structure of a specific polymer embedded within a solid base of that exact same polymer to increase strength. These materials do not contain any glass, carbon, or other foreign additives. They are made physically and chemically of 100% pure polymer. If a material is made entirely of a single plastic explicitly listed in <R24>, but utilizes this internal self-reinforced woven structure, is it considered legal provided it meets all other rule requirements (such as being non-shattering, staying within the maximum 0.070" thickness, and adhering to the individual piece limits)?

Do 2mm thickness plastic legal?

VEX Pressure Gauge on the e high pressure side count as part of the robot or it can arbitrary disassembly like a pump?

<R28>

In <R28>, nothing is said about the legality of modifying motor caps of 5.5W Smart Motors. Should we assume that the 5.5W Smart Motor falls under V5 Smart Motors, or is it separate and illegal to modify?

<RSC3>

RSC3, bullet iv indicates a Pin in contact with a Robot at the end of a Match does not score points.

What if a Pin is inside a Cup and the Robot is contacting only said Cup? Is it scored or not?

In the rulebook, <SG10> states that "Placed Scoring Objects cannot be removed from neutral Goals.". <SC2> clearly identifies an example of a position a pin may take on a stack which is not Placed, shown in Figure SC2-2 (pin placed horizontally on a cup without either half of the pin being entirely contained within the concave portion of the cup).

We wanted to ask about the legality of the following:

(a) Removing a Pin that is not Placed, such as a Pin positioned similarly to the one shown in Figure SC2-2.

(b) Removing a Cup which is similarly balanced horizontally on top of other game elements without being placed.

(c) Removing a Cup which is balanced on top of another Cup without a pin in between (or, similarly, a Pin balanced on a Pin with no Cups in between).

(d) Removing a Placed cup which is not affecting the score of the game (ex. transparent part facing downwards, with no pins above, thereby not adding or subtracting points from the game.

(e) If it would be a major violation to accidentally knock over protected scoring elements in an effort to reopen an alliance or neutral goal for scoring by removing a game element that was positioned on the goal but not Scored/Placed.

(f) Rule <SG9> states that "Robots may not directly or indirectly interact with the opposing Alliance-colored Goals", and clarifies that this includes adding and removing scoring objects. Would stacking a horizontal game element as seen in Figure SC2-1, or any unplaced game elements as stated above count as interaction with these goals? By definition, this is not Placed, and it is not an action of descoring, but it forces the opposing alliance to take time to reopen their own alliance's goal for scoring.

(g) If it would be a violation of <SG6> for one of these game elements to fall onto a bot already possessing 1 pin and 1 cup in the action of removing it from the goal.

Thank you so much!

Thanks all for Automate session June 22, nothing like breaking the game on our first spin - several questions ...

#5 Da Rules - SC2 A Pin is considered Placed if it meets all of the following criteria: i. The Pin is partially or entirely nested with a Goal, or with a Cup that is partially or entirely nested with another Placed Pin. ii. Each Goal and/or each half of a Cup nested with that Pin contains a maximum of one Pin half. (See Figure SC2-2.) b. A Cup is considered Placed if it meets the following criteria: i. The Cup is partially or entirely nested with a Placed Pin.

<SC2>

Da Question - SC 2 Placed scoring criteria has “partially” seated as a requirement unless specifically split – does count as scored, does this mean that the paritially seated / gray cup that partially covers a colored pin is NOT scored while still being partially visible or?

Thanks all for Automate session June 22, nothing like breaking the game on our first spin - several questions ...

#1 Da Rule <SC4> <SC4> A Toggle is considered set to a color when it meets all of the following criteria at the end of the Match: a. The Toggle must be fully seated, such that there is a face of the Toggle in contact and parallel with its mounts on the Field Perimeter at rest. (see Figure SC5-1) b. The Toggle is not in contact with a Robot from either Alliance.

Da Question - Is the black bracket included in the “touch” of a toggle that would cause us to ignore the color of the toggle for scoring

<SC7><SC5><SG7>

How would the robots in the midfield at end of autonomous period be counted? Shown in the picture illustrated below with 2 Blue robots and 1 Red robot. One Blue robot was contacting the midfield goal and also pushed the other red robot that parked first. Another blue robot crossed the double autonomous line but entered the midfield.

Per SC5b. A yellow Pin Placed in the Midfield is Owned by the Alliance that ends the Match with a greater number of Robots in the Midfield. As this is not end of the match, yellow pin shall not be counted even with 2 parked Blue vs 1 parked Red.

Per SC7a, Points for ending the Autonomous Period in the Midfield are not included in the calculation of an Alliance’s score for the purposes of determining the Autonomous Bonus. Thus the Yellow pin shall not be counted as owned by Blue Alliance.

Per SG7, <SG7> Don’t cross the Autonomous Line, and don’t interfere with your opponents’ actions. Are all 3 robots violating?

Per SG8, <SG8> Engage with the Midfield and/or Autonomous Line during the Autonomous Period at your own risk. In this case, even if the Blue robot entered midfield and pushed the Red robot that has parked ealier time, Per SC8d, no penalty shall be given to Blue Alliance.

Result 1: No violation, midfield is allowed and autonomous line cross is allowed. With 2 parked blue vs 1 parked Red, Blue allicance won auton and also owned the yellow pin.

Result 2: No violation, midfield is allowed and autonomous line cross is allowed. Yellow pin is not owned by either Alliance. However, with 2 parked blue vs 1 Red, Blue alliance won the auton bonus points.

Result 3: All 3 robots violate SG7, thus no Auton bonus will be awarded.

Result 4: IF the Red robot did not enter the midfield but only the 2 Blue robots, then Red Alliance will receive the 12 AP, given Blue Alliance violating SG7

Could you clarify the robots in midfield at end of Autonomous Period, not end of match?

In rule <SC8>, the first two criteria for the Autonomous Win Point are listed as (emphasis mine):

1. At least seven (7) Pins Placed for your Alliance (does not include Pins scored in Quadrants on the opposing side of the Autonomous Line)
2. At least three (3) Goals each contain at least two (2) Pins scored for your Alliance (does not include Goals in Quadrants on the opposing side of the Autonomous Line)

<SC3>states:

Each Placed Pin can have one or two Scored halves.

If a Pin (not in a Quadrant on the opposing side of the Autonomous Line) meets the definition of Placed but not the definition of Scored, does it count as "Placed for your Alliance" when regarding criteria 1 of the Autonomous Win Point?

Hello, <SC3c>: "Each visible yellow half of a Placed and Owned Pin counts as a Scored yellow Pin, earning points for the Alliance that Owns the Pin." <SC8>: An Alliance earns the Autonomous Win Point if it has "7 Pins scored for your Alliance."

Our question is about the meaning of "Pins scored for your Alliance" in <SC8>.

Since <SC3c> explicitly states that an owned yellow Pin is scored for the Alliance that owns it, does it count toward the seven Pins required for the Autonomous Win Point?

For example:

Blue Alliance has 5 blue Pins and 2 yellow Pins that are owned by Blue because the corresponding Toggle is set to Blue. Does this count as 7 Pins scored for Blue, satisfying the <SC8> requirement?

Could the GDC clarify whether "7 Pins scored for your Alliance" in <SC8> includes owned yellow Pins, or if it refers only to Alliance-colored (blue/red) Pins?

The Glossary defines a Quadrant as one of four designated triangular areas of the Field. Each Quadrant is described as red or blue based on the Alliance-colored Goal it includes.

However, the VEX Tournament Manager labels the four Quadrants as “Red Quadrant 1”, “Red Quadrant 2”, “Blue Quadrant 1”, and “Blue Quadrant 2”.

Could the GDC please clarify:

Which specific Quadrant corresponds to each label in the scoring app (e.g., is Red Quadrant 1 the one closest to the red Alliance Station, etc.)? Will these labels be used consistently across all official scoring systems and event materials?

This clarification would help Teams, referees, and scorekeepers ensure consistent communication during events.

<SG9>Dear Game Design Committee, We have a few questions on the interactions with goals. <SG9>: “Robots may not directly or indirectly interact with opposing Alliance-colored Goals.” <SG10>: “Placed Scoring Objects cannot be removed from neutral Goals.” The rulebook had no mention on interactions with Goals on the their own alliance.

Our first question is, is the removal of Scoring Objects on our own alliance allowed? For example: Blue alliance has stacked up on blue alliance goals and they topple their pins and cups over, would such actions violate the game rule?

Our second question is, if an interaction with neutral or opposing goal is forced, such as the blue alliance contacts an opposing goal due to a red alliance robot playing pushing the blue alliance, or toppling over pins scored in neutral goals due to an opponent robot pushing the robot towards the goals, would blue alliance violate rules <SG9> and <SG10>?

Our last question is, does toppling pins scored on your own alliance goals due to opponent contact cause our opponent to violate the rules? For example, blue alliance was scoring a pin on top of their goal, and a red alliance robot pushes the blue alliance robot toward their goal, causing them to topple over the scoring objects. Would red alliance violate the rules doing so? Quoting <SG9>: “Robots may not directly or indirectly interact with opposing Alliance-colored Goals.” Would this count as indirect interaction, therefore giving red alliance a penalty? Thank you for taking the time, 68678M

Under <SG10>, Robots are not permitted to remove Scoring Objects from Neutral Mobile Goals. The rule notes that a Violation of this rule may lead to a penalty and could be Match Affecting.

At recent regional events, there has been a difference in interpretation regarding how SG10 violations should escalate to a Major Violation (Disqualification):

Interpretation A (Local Event Ruling): If a Robot removes two or more Scoring Objects in a single continuous action, the infraction automatically escalates to a Major Violation resulting in a Disqualification (DQ), regardless of whether the action directly altered the outcome of the Match.

Interpretation B (Manual Interpretation): A single action removing multiple Scoring Objects constitutes a Minor Violation unless it is determined to be Match Affecting or part of a pattern of repeated Violations after a warning, as per general rule guidelines.

Questions for the GDC:

1. Does removing two or more Scoring Objects in a single action automatically constitute an automatic Major Violation (DQ) on its own?
2. Is the escalation from a Minor Violation to a Major Violation under SG10 strictly governed by whether the action is Match Affecting (or repeated), or can a Head Referee escalate it to a Major Violation based solely on the quantity of Scoring Objects affected in a single event?

Thank you for your time and clarification!

<SG11>

The Driver's Station appears to be about a foot from the field and a foot from the end of the field. It would be difficult for a drive team member to stay in the driver's station as drawn and interact with the loader as intended. Are Event Partners allowed to change the Driver's Station so that it is against the field and goes to the end of the field?

Thanks!

<SG11>

In rule SG11 it states "introduce' refers to the moment when a Drive Team Member has released a Scoring Object into a Loader." However, point b of SG11 states "A Match Load Scoring Object may not be contacted by a Robot prior to being introduced into a Loader." Since the only definition of matchloading is when someone releases a game object into a loader, is it legal for a robot to be sitting under a raised loader and a driveteam member releasing a game object into the loader and it falls directly into the robot without it first touching the ground?

<SG11> SG11a states that "scoring objects may only be introduced...during the Driver Controlled Period of a match". The definition of match in Appendix B defines "Autonomous Coding Skills Matches" as matches with "no Driver Controlled Period". My interpretation of is rule is that, when read together with the definition, it forbids match-loading during Autonomous Skills Matches.

However, at some events it has been ruled that teams are allowed to introduce match loads during Autonomous Skills Matches. Whilst the rules seem fairly clear, because of the potential impact of this ruling (especially if it were to be applied inconsistently between competitions) I wanted to ensure that it was clarified.

Therefore: Does SG11a forbid introducing match loads during Autonomous Skills Matches?

<SG4>

When preparing to referee/score-keep a scrimmage recently, I came across a particular scenario regarding clause A of <SG4>. The first sentence of Clause A states:

If a Scoring Object is leaving the Field (as determined by the Head Referee), but is deflected back into the Field by a Drive Team Member, field monitor, ceiling/wall, or other external factor, it should still be considered "out of the Field" and removed by a Scorekeeper Referee or Head Referee.

My question regarding this clause is if the game element in question does indeed leave the field, as determined by the Head Referee, and is deflected back into the field via an external factor, but comes to rest in a hard to reach area such as close to or within the midfield (emphasis mine):

A) Are the Scorekeepers or Head Referee still expected to reach into the field during a match to attempt to remove the game element and reintroduce it back as described in main body of <SG4>?

B) If Yes to A, then how would this be applied to raised fields where mobility to reach into the field is already extremely limited to roughly the first tile or two from the perimeter wall?

C) If No to A, since the objective of the game does not involve any form of tossing or launching of the game elements, would this be left as a Minor/Major Violation ruling based on the listed violation notes and/or a violation of <GG4>, Hands out of the Field, as listed in the latter sentence of Clause A?

I would appreciate the GDCs clarification in proceeding given such a scenario. Thank you!

<SG6>

SG6 limits Possession to a maximum of one (1) Pin and one (1) Cup, and SG6a clarifies that Plowing multiple Scoring Objects is permitted.

Appendix B defines Possession as a status where "a Robot's change in direction would result in controlled movement of the Scoring Object," typically requires at least one of the following:

• the object is fully supported
• moved in a preferred direction inside a concave face...
• held against the Floor or a Field Element.

Plowing is defined as intentionally moving an object in a preferred direction with a flat or convex face or with another Scoring Object (emphasis mine).

Consider a stack consisting of several Pins and Cups. A Robot uses a concave mechanism such as a claw, to grab a single Scoring Object at the bottom of that stack. The bottom cup or pin is contacting the robot and meets the definition of possession, however the remaining pins and cups only meet the first dot point, and is "moving with another Scoring Object."

Is the Robot considered to be Possessing only the single Scoring Object it has directly grasped, with the remaining stacked objects treated as plowed? Or, because the Robot's change in direction results in controlled movement of every object in the stack, is the Robot considered to be Possessing all of those Pins and Cups placing it in Violation of SG6 once the count exceeds one Pin and/or one Cup?

Our robot features a structure at the rear of the chassis consisting of a High Strength Shaft with two standoffs mounted on either side, creating a slightly concave/U-shaped profile. There is a Polycarbonate shaped like the diagram installed between the two standoffs, which sits nearly flush with the field, making it impossible to scoop or lift any Pins or Cups. Rule <SG6a> states: "Plowing multiple Scoring Objects is permitted. Teams which employ Plowing strategies are encouraged to clearly demonstrate that none of the Scoring Objects are being Possessed, e.g., by using a flat face of the Robot with no active mechanisms."

Q1. Would pushing multiple Pins and/or Cups along the floor using this rear structure be considered legal Plowing, or would this concave shape be viewed as "Possession" (or carrying/holding) of those Scoring Objects?

Q2. Does using a passive concave boundary (like two standoffs with the PC sheet) automatically constitute Possession, or is it evaluated strictly based on whether the objects are trapped, lifted, or actively controlled?

Rule <SG7> (b) states:

Scoring Objects that begin the Match in contact with the Autonomous Line are not considered to be on either side, and may be utilized by either Alliance during the Autonomous Period...

and <SG7> (e):

Contact with either of the following during the Autonomous Period will result in the Autonomous Bonus and an Autonomous Win Point being awarded to the opposing Alliance, unless the opposing Alliance also breaks rules in the Autonomous Period: i. An opponent Robot that isn’t interacting with the Autonomous Line, objects that begin the Match positioned above or in contact with the Autonomous Line, or the Midfield (see <SG8>). ii. Scoring Objects on the other side of the Autonomous Line.

I am curious about the clause in (e).(i) that includes "..objects that begin the match positions above or in contact with the autonomous line.." stating that they are banned from use during autonomous and will result in both the autonomous bonus and win point awarded to the opposing alliance. The problem arises as: (b) is clarifying exactly what objects are considered to be "in contact" with the autonomous line, and that they are allowed to be used (e) is saying that objects "in contact" with the autonomous line are banned from use.

Would the GDC be able to clarify: A. Which ruling is intended to be correct, and in the case (b) is correct, any potential intent of including such clause in (e): such as banning other objects from use that may not be covered by (b)? B. If (e).(i) is correct in that those objects are unable to be contacted, does ".., or the midfield" mean objects that start on the midfield, or the midfield's lines and vertical projection itself?

<T6> states (emphasis mine):

Fields may be repaired at the Event Partner’s discretion. All competition Fields at an event must be set up in accordance with the specifications in Appendix A and/or other applicable Sections. Minor aesthetic customizations or repairs are permitted, provided that they do not impact gameplay (see <T4>).

An example of a permissible modification to the Field listed in the rule is:

Using non-VEX electrical tape to add required lines to the Field

Would substituing the red and blue tape lines that define the Load Zones with white tape lines be a permissible modification to the Field?